The “communication” shibboleth women talk about about in relationships

We’ve all heard women say they wish their partners, or guys in general, would be better “communicators,” but I’m suspect of this meme: pleas for better “communication” often mean “I want the other person to do what I want,” and indirect communication often means “I know the other person doesn’t want what I want, so I’m going to be deliberately ambiguous.” A very common form of this: a man and woman have been f**king for a while, a few weeks, maybe even a month or two, and the woman wants to define the relationship, while the man doesn’t. “What does he really want?” the woman asks, and asks her friends. “Why won’t he communicate with me?” He really wants to keep f**king her but also be able to try and f**k other girls, while not having to deal with building a woman’s idea of a “relationship” that means instead of studying Bitcoin sourcecode on the weekend, she wants to drag him to brunch with her inane friends, the hot ones of whom won’t have a threesome anyway. Insert your own examples here. When sex dries up, a man often becomes more interested in communicating, that is, debugging why the sex is going away. Early in the relationship, the woman is often ambiguous about her desire to have a family, because many guys want to f**k around, not take care of infants and postpartum women who’ve forgotten that the blowjob is the essential tool for relationships harmony, perhaps even more important than making dinner and not complaining. 

So a lot of “not communicating” is really “liking what’s happening now and not wanting to f**k it up by being direct, instead of ambiguous.” For long-term relationships ambiguity strategies are often worse than not. A lot of guys know that admitting to women, “I want to f**k every hot chick with big tits I see” is not an attractive thing to say, so we don’t “communicate” our innermost feelings. A lot of chicks don’t want to say, “I’m highly attracted to photogenic 6’4” guys online, just like every other woman, and I chase him like all the other women, and we’re lemmings running off a cliff together.” Part of growing up is learning when to communicate, and when not to. For women, “good communication” means “doing the thing I want to do.” Xbtusd recently suffered a peculiar setback when his primary partner and another woman he’s sleeping with went out for drinks together, got drunk, misunderstood each other, and then caused problems for him, and for each of them. Whatever happened to women as master communicators? Not in xbtusd’s case. Many bi women can’t make it happen with another woman because neither woman will “communicate” the first move. They rely on men to make that happen. Men, to no one’s surprise, set up and execute most sex clubs and sex parties, although often with a woman in the mix, ideally as a figurehead, the same way women in music are almost always singers and never play instruments. Lead singers are figures of intense attention. For men, playing music at all, in any capacity, is linked to sexual success.

XBTUSD’s take on “the talk” a woman gives when she wants to advance the relationship

XBTUSD is back: his last post describes his first sex party, and he’s written three other posts too.

Almost every male and female in a modern dating context is doing some form of a dance: women want an escalator relationship towards marriage, and men want to avoid committing for a long as possible. Men enjoy the pre-label part of the relationship and women get value and security out of the label. Breeze’s post and Nash/RQ’s comments brought up some interesting points about this age-old topic: should a guy get out in front of things and confront the inevitable and have the talk, or should you avoid the talk and build tension, as Nash suggests? I strongly side with RQ and Lucas Bly, but Nash’s comments added another distinction. I’ve heard many in TRP communities argue that those who have the talk aren’t skilled, can’t hold tension, and are essentially pussies for giving in to what the woman wants and losing the frame. But Nash’s comment that he offers up, “I am your lover” made me realize we all might actually be agreeing here.

There’s value in building and holding tension, but only if it is inevitably released. Good standup is setup, punchline, build tension, release tension, and good seduction should have a similar cadence. Those who say you can avoid “the talk” altogether come off as those that haven’t spent much time around women and are LARPing. The talk is inevitable, so how can we approach it from a Red Pill frame. We have to lead. Create the frame, and let her step into it.

TRQ has a great post on the book Warrior King Magician Lover.

XBTUSD on his first non-monogamy experiences

XBTUSD has a follow-up post, which will make sense in the context of his earlier post.

TRQ asked about my first experience with non monogamy where I was with a girl who was not my partner.

I started to move into ethical non-monogamy (ENM) by changing the structure of the “dating” phase of relationships. Where I live, everyone assumes everyone is seeing/fucking other people until an explicit define the relationship (DTR) conversation happens. A clock starts running when you know that past a certain point, even though it was not made explicit, if your girl found out you were sleeping with another girl, she’d be angry even if technically she had no right to be (girls don’t readily accept emotional contracts). I started making the implicit contract we all sign (when we start dating people) explicit. I’d tell girls right from the starting point (first date) that I only wanted to be in non-monogamous relationships and that I didn’t want to be in any sort of committed relationship at the current moment. I like to call most relationships with an implicit contract “escalator” relationships: men know that once they start dating a girl the clock starts ticking and the girl will try and move you up the escalator as quickly as possible:

non exclusive → exclusive → meet friends → boyfriend → meet family → move in → marriage → children

Women compete for status by their ability to extract resources from high status men, and therefore it’s socially desirable to compare where they are in the relationship escalator with their friends, and in turn men throughout the years have come up with every possible way to drag their feet and slow this process. Women lose status when they can’t get you to the next step in a socially acceptable amount of time because time is the most precious resource a woman has. In the same way companies have “title” inflation to keep dumb millennials around without paying them more, men have used “title” inflation in a relationship context to keep women around longer by giving them new titles that come with no true concessions and resource investments on our part. Amongst Gen Z “exclusive” but not in a relationship is now a thing?

How can you exit this whole maddening structure? Give women the information, let them take responsibility for their choices. Rather than living in the world of don’t ask don’t tell about the other people we all know we’re seeing, I started being explicit about exactly what women could expect from me, and it was life changing. In many ways, I wasn’t doing anything that different than anyone else does when dating where I live, I was just being candid about it.

The first true extra partner experience I had once I was in a committed non monogamous relationship was actually initiated by my girlfriend (we can call her Sarah). Sarah had the highest sex drive of anyone I had ever been with, and was very sexually open. We had talked about having a threesome with a girl but she had said she wasn’t attracted to girls. She was a big drinker, and generally (like most people) became much wilder when she was drinking. One night I was at a big outdoor EDM show, rolling (MDMA) with a big crew of people and her and one of my female friends (Corey) just started making out. Corey was married to another friend of mine (Andrew). Andrew and I chatted and agreed we were both down to have a foursome. We went back to our place and had the standard hetero foursome where everyone fucks but the two dudes don’t touch each other at all. Andrew was cool with it but was slightly nervous so a lot of it was Corey and Sarah hooking up and us watching. I felt no fear/disgust/nervousness but rather was super turned on by the whole thing. I think a big part of it was that I knew everyone so well. It was hard to imagine feeling threatened by the interaction. A week later we all got together and debriefed and everyone agreed they had a great time. No latent jealousy, misunderstandings etc.

What does “quality girl” mean?

Online, there is endless discussion of how to seek out and identify “quality” girls, whatever that means… “quality” in a girl is tricky, since most girls, like men, have some good and some bad points. A lot of guys who think they want “quality,” who say they want “quality,” really want to convert a hot sexually adventurous slut into a housewife (rarely works well, but give it a go if you like… please don’t come whining to the Internet if it doesn’t). If you go for girls who are -1 or -2 relative to you in sexual market value (SMV), you can probably get a girl who will invest heavily in you… if she’s not that hot, though, you won’t want her, and you won’t care about how she returns your texts promptly and does other “nice” girl things. A lot of guys “want” a girl who is hot, a sex fiend (for him and him alone), absurdly loyal (perhaps not demanding fidelity in return), mentally stable, has an even-keeled personality, and perhaps has other desirable traits too. Girls who combine all those qualities in a single slender body are not that common… and they tend to have a lot of suitors to choose from. Supply and demand, mate. A guy who wants all those things is the male equivalent of women who want a guy who is over six feet tall, makes a lot of $$$, has good social skills, prioritizes her and her attention needs, etc. etc. These guys too exist, but in small numbers, and they tend to have lots of options, which they often like to exercise, vigorously and horizontally.

Sometimes vertically, too, for the sake of variety.

A lot of girls aren’t honest about what they really want… superficially they say they want a “relationship” (with a top guy, which is unstated), but in reality their behaviors indicate they want to get f**ked a lot (by a hot guy, or when they’re horny). “I got drunk and it just ‘happened'” is not the statement of a girl who really wants a relationship. Thing is… a lot of guys aren’t honest either. A lot of guys aren’t truly working to improve themselves, and their results are consistent with that. I tweeted a while ago, “most guys don’t really care that much about getting laid.” If they do care about getting laid, they’ll quit video games, prioritize the gym, eat no sugar, and do the other things common to guys who get laid, as opposed to guys who don’t, or guys who say they want to but don’t align their behavior with that stated want.

“Picking up girls” skills and “long-term relationships” skills

I’ve said this in some different places but not headlined with it: “Picking up girls” skills and “long-term relationships” skills overlap, but there’s a lot of non-overlap too. For picking up chicks, approach anxiety, initial comments, flirting skills, sheer physicality, fashion sense, logistics, dealing with shit tests, etc. are paramount. Guys should practice and build up those skills. For long-term relationships, emotional compatibility, lifestyle, money/money philosophy, ability to maintain sexual heat, long-term life goals, etc. are much more important. Guys can be good at both but there’s a lot of distinction between the two and if you specialize in being a player you will likely hone the early skills and forget the later ones even exist.

If you are a young guy without a lot of experience with women you should concentrate pretty much entirely on short and medium term relationship skills. If you are an older guy you will have to evaluate your life course for yourself and think about what you seek over time.

Guys who are truly specialized in short term relationships may lose the idea that in the medium or long term, some of the “game” aspects go away… or change. Yes, women will still shit test over the long term, but sometimes the issues are real issues and not shit tests. Real issues that need to be addressed. Sometimes they are comfort tests, a topic that doesn’t come up much because I think most guys don’t get to that stage. Emotionally healthy and secure chicks will have needs that they will bring up, and consistently not meeting those needs will cause the woman to look elsewhere… if she is damaged she may become more attracted to adrenaline, drama, and not having those needs met.

I have made this mistake before.

“The mom having an affair because her husband did first”

The Brooklyn Mom Having an Affair Because Her Husband Had One First. This piece illustrates the dangers of affairs and non-monogamy. I see guys online suggesting that it’s okay for a guy to have a quiet side piece while his main woman cares for the kids and runs the house.

That is of course possible. For a few guys, feasible. For most guys, not much…. requires too much money, time, dedication, etc. Too easy to get caught today.

If you do it, she will likely want to do it too. And when she does it, this can lead to alienation of affection as well as paternity uncertainty. If the guy in this story thinks the next kid in his, well, he might be wrong.

Tough conversations. Downside of being known as a player

Tough conversations this weekend. I’m having some challenges making some of the changes I want to make, and I am suffering some right now because I have been a player for a long time and have a player reputation and a lot of player instincts. The player instincts don’t serve me well in trying to develop a longer-term relationship with a woman who has a more secure attachment style and who knows what she wants.

A word on reputation and what chicks are looking for. Players tend to filter out family-oriented chicks. A few guys have been talking about this on Twitter, although none blog, so I can’t link a canonical post on the subject. But chicks who want monogamy and families exist: they’re the ones who are not interested in guys who give off player vibes. Some are very pretty. They usually have a small number of lifetime sex partners, don’t have sex immediately, and find guys who are attractive, have their shit together, and are career-oriented. Priorities and what you bring to life (Katie’s story) is about this type of chick. Sexually adventurous chicks make for interesting and fun stories… extremely family-oriented chicks don’t, usually. I am thinking of two chicks I know who were (and are) very pretty and followed the family-life pattern. Often these chicks will compromise somewhat on “looks and extroversion” to get “family-oriented and monogamous.” They often find long-term guys in their 20s and often work jobs that give them access to guys with good earnings and family orientation.

Many family-oriented, mostly monogamous chicks who will have one or two flings in their lives… if you catch them at the right time with the right game you may get with one… but these chicks keep their wilder impulses under control and filter guys for being better dads and providers. This is the kind of woman who, if you cold approach her, will say “no” and move on. She’s probably never been on Tinder or, if she has, she quit it in disgust. She’s not doing the things Red Pill guys complain about, but she’s also looking for a guy commensurate to her in value, so low value guys are going to be just about sexually invisible to her. Many online Red Pill guys are low value and thrashing about women because it’s almost impossible to overcome being low value, kind of like fat chicks complaining about men. For fat chicks, their number one problem in accessing higher-value men is being fat, and pretty much nothing they do without changing their diets and movement habits will improve their situation.

Reputation matters and chicks are going to judge you on, like you judge them on it (if you know them).

“It is not your job to match your boyfriend’s libido.” Yes, it is.

At least the guy in “It is not your job to match your boyfriend’s libido” was not stupid enough to marry this woman, because his relationship with her is likely OVER. Unfortunately, the woman dispensing advice to another woman is just reinforcing the bullshit view that it’s a great idea for a woman to repeatedly refuse her man sex… which is going to lead to the end of the relationship.

Soon, she likely to be doing 100% of the housework, because the man is going to leave (if he has any balls… maybe he doesn’t).

A man, however, is only as good as his other options, and this mainstream press piece reminds us that in today’s world we must always have and be cultivating other options. You cannot give up. There is no coasting. It may hurt to imagine that, but it’s true.

If the genders had been reversed, it would of course be the man’s responsibility to match the woman’s libido, and, if he cannot, it would be her right to seek satisfaction elsewhere.

To give the woman her due, it’s reasonable not to want to be routinely woken up for sex in the middle of the night if you’re not into that kind of thing… but a reasonable woman would also say, “Instead, I want to have sex in these times and ways, and I’m making it work for both of us.”

The more game I’ve needed the worse the relationship has been

I was reading “Honest observations after eight years in the game” and got to thinking: the more game I’ve needed to get a particular girl, or the more I’ve had to run game on her, the worse the relationship has been. The ones who are bitchy, constantly testing, and most difficult can be good in bed but the relationships themselves are never the best. Those women are only good as friends with benefits, and even then the “friends” part stretches the definition of the word.

The ones who just wanted me and the sex and let everything lead into that have been the most pleasant to deal with and over time the best in bed. Over time this has become my own test: How much game did I need to get this woman? The more game, the more likely I am to jettison her or keep her in a distant rotation.

It’s amazing to me that many women think playing hard to get and being unpleasant to be around is somehow a way to get and keep a man: maybe they think they’re somehow testing men, without realizing that they’re filtering out the best guys, and the ones who stick around can’t find pleasant women. Being unpleasant will likely yield up some casual sex for women, from men who persevere despite their attitude, but it’s a terrible way to get a relationship. Over time, the guys who persist most will be the ones with no other options. Guys with options will find a woman who’s more pleasant to be around, and “pleasant to be around” starts with the first interaction. Soiling the first interaction is often like screwing up the foundation of a building: there’s no real way to fix some problems.

Bike Girl was pleasant when I met her, pleasant in texting, pleasant on the first date, and has been pleasant since. So was the gorgeous 19-year-old I met a couple years ago and dated for almost two. Most of the relationships I’ve ended prematurely ended because the girl was the opposite. The more “game,” I’ve needed, the more I realized (usually sooner) that the girl couldn’t and shouldn’t be anything more than a lover or FWB. The more I’ve felt “tested,” the more I’ve known the girl is no good or no good for me. Next!

No wonder relationships in the U.S. are f**ked.

This isn’t an “actionable” post and doesn’t matter much for guys who want to hit ‘n’ run. But guys who are still being chosen, rather than being the choosers, should know that your whole world changes when you do more choosing. You learn a lot, quickly.